NanoEthics

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 309–318 | Cite as

Invigorating ‘Nanoethics’: Recommendations for Improving Deliberations in Taiwan and Beyond

  • Shawn H. E. Harmon
  • Shang-Yung Yen
  • Shu-Mei Tang
Original Paper

Abstract

Nanotechnology is the new(est) star in the high technologies sky. While nanotechnologies remain technologies of promise and potential, a growing number of nano-materials and nano-particle-reliant products are being produced. And although a growing number of academic, policy and industry reports are exploring nanotechnologies, there are very few genuine ethical assessments of nanotechnologies as they exist and might evolve in the coming years. Many questions have yet to be answered about the nature, development, and social and commercial deployment of nanotechnologies and what that means for the human condition and the preservation of our core values. We argue that the early and potentially risky nature of this interdisciplinary science does not justify a blinkered focus on risk assessment and management to the detriment of deep and ranging ethical evaluations. Much improved ethics evaluations must be undertaken, particularly in Taiwan where very little has happened despite grand expectations for, and funding of, the science. In this paper, we uncover the development imperatives for nanotechnologies, demonstrate the paucity of genuine nanoethics exercises, outline key questions for stakeholders undertaking nanoethics exercises to consider, and we articulate some preliminary actions for Taiwan (and other similarly situated jurisdictions).

Keywords

Ethics Nanotechnologies Risk Uncertainty Values Taiwan 

References

  1. 1.
    Aitken R et al (2004) Nanoparticles: an occupational hygiene review: HSE research report 274. Health & Safety Executive Books, NorwichGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arendt H (1958) The human condition. CUP, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atlan H (1999) Les Étincelles du Hasard. Seuil, ParisGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baird D, Shew A (2004) Probing the history of scanning tunnelling microscopy. In: Baird D et al (eds) Discovering the nanoscale. IOS, Amsterdam, pp 145–156Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bawa R et al (2005) Protecting new ideas and inventions in nanomedicine with patents. Nanomedicine 1:150–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benjamin W (1968) In: Arendt H (ed) Illuminations: essays and reflections. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, NYGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bhushan D (ed) (2005) Handbook of nanotechnology, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cheng TJ (2010) Risk perception and policy research of nanotechnology, report of environmental protection administration project EPA-99-U1U1-02-101Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chou KT (2007) Conflicts of technology policy and governance paradigm. Issues Stud 43:97–130Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cobb M, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res 6:395–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Drexler E et al (2003) Unbounding the future: the nanotechnology revolution. Quill Books, NYGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    D’Silva J (2009) Pools, thickets and open source nanotechnology. Eur Intellect Property Rev 31:300–306Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dupuy JP (2007) Some pitfalls in the philosophical foundations of nanoethics. J Med Philos 32:237–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Expert Panel on Nanotechnology (2008) Small is different: a science perspective on the regulatory challenges of the nanoscale. Council of Canadian Academies, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ferrari A, Nordmann A (2010) Beyond conversation: some lessons for nanoethics. NanoEthics 4:171–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Feynman R (1959, December) There’s plenty of room at the bottom. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Physical Society, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fischer D (2008) Nanotechnology–scientific and regulatory challenges. Villanova Environ Law J 19:315–333Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Foladori G et al (2009) Two dimensions of the ethical problems related to nanotechnology. NanoEthics 3:121–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Friedrichs S, Schulte J (2007) Environmental, health and safety aspects of nanotechnology: implications for the R&D in small company. Sci Tech Adv Mater 8:12–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gaskell G et al (2005) Imaging nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Publ Understand Sci 14:81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Harmon S (2006) From engagement to re-engagement: the expression of moral values in patenting proceedings, present and future. Eur Law Rev 31:642–666Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Harmon S (2006) Solidarity: a (new) ethic for global health policy. Health Care Anal 14:215–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Harmon S (2008) Ethical rhetoric: genomics and the moral content of UNESCO’s ‘Universal’ declarations. J Med Ethics 34:e24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Harmon S (2010) Regulation of stem cell and regenerative science: stakeholder opinions, plurality and actor space in the argentine social/science setting. Law Innovat Tech 2:95–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Harmon S, Kim NK (2008) A tale of two standards: drift and inertia in modern Korean medical law. SCRIPTed 5(2):267–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hart Research Associates (2007) Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and federal regulatory agencies: a report of findings. Available at http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Nanotechnologies/Hart_NanoPoll_2007.pdf [accessed 5 April 2010]
  27. 27.
    Helland Å (2004) Nanoparticles: a closer look at the risks to human health and the environment perceptions and precautionary measures of industry and regulatory bodies in Europe. Available at http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=1329339&fileOId=1329340 [accessed 5 April 2010]
  28. 28.
    Hullman A, Frycek R (2007) Results from the ‘international IPR in nanotechnology–lessons from experiences worldwide’. World Patent Inform 29:395–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hullman A, Meyer M (2003) Publications and patents in nanotechnology: an overview of previous studies and the state of the art. Sci Metrics 58:507–527Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Johnson D (2007) Ethics and technology ‘in the making’: an essay on the challenges of nanoethics. NanoEthics 1:21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jones D (2006) Enhancement: are ethicists excessively influenced by baseless speculation? J Med Ethics 32:77–81Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kallinger C et al (2008) Patenting nanotechnology: a European patent office perspective. Nano Law Bus 5:95–106Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Koepsell D (2009) Let’s get small: an introduction to transitional issues in nanotech and intellectual property. NanoEthics 3:157–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lemley M (2005) Patenting nanotechnology. Stanford Law Rev 58:601–630Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lin KM (2008) Technology policy democratization: possibility and limitation–an example of GMO consensus conference in Taiwan. Available at http://www.nsc.gov.tw/scicircus/public/Attachment/95149145471.pdf
  36. 36.
    Manoharan H et al (2000) Quantum mirages formed by coherent projection of electronic structure. Nature 403:512–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Marchant G et al (2008) Risk management principles for nanotechnology. NanoEthics 2:43–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Maynard A et al (2006) Safe handling of nanotechnology. Nature 444:267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mody C (2006) Corporations, universities and instrumental communities: commercialising probe microscopy, 1981–1996. Technol Cult 47:56–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    National Science Council (2002, June) National science and technology programme for nanoscience and nanotechnology, approved by the 157th NSC Board Meeting. Available at http://nano-taiwan.sinica.edu.tw/newsen.asp
  41. 41.
    National Science Council, Eighth National Science and Technology Conference, Taipei, 12–15 January 2009Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    National Science Council (2009) Risk perceptions about nanotechnology in Taiwan. Available at http://www.epa.gov.tw/FileDownload/FileHandler.ashx?FLID=15096
  43. 43.
    Nordmann A, Rip A (2009) Mind the gap revisited. Nat Nanotech 4:273–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nowotny H et al (2001) Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Palmberg C et al (2009) OECD working paper 2009/7: nanotechnology: an overview based on indicators and statistics. OECD, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pidgeon N, Rogers-Hayden T (2007) Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the public: risk communication or ‘upstream engagement’? Health Risk Soc 9:191–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Powell M (2007) New risk or old risk, high risk or no risk? how scientists’ standpoints shape their nanotechnology risk frames. Health Risk Soc 9:173–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ratner M, Ratner D (2003) Nanotechnology: a gentle introduction to the next big idea. Prentice Hall, NYGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Renn O, Roco M (2006) Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. J Nano Res 8:153–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rip A (1997) A cognitive approach to relevance in science. Soc Sci Inf 38:615–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rip A (2011, June) How to integrate future and speculative possibilities with ongoing and embedded dynamics of development. Paper presented at the Implanted Smart Technologies Project Research Retreat, PragueGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Roco M, Bainbridge M (eds) (2001) NSET workshop report: societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Available at http://www.wtec.org/loyola/nano/NSET.Societal.Implications/nanosi.pdf [accessed 1 April 2010]
  53. 53.
    Rogers-Hayden T, Pidgeon N (2006) Reflecting upon the UK’s Citizens’ jury on nanotechnologies: nanojury UK. Nanotech L Bus 3:167–180Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Royal Society, Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. RS/RAE, LondonGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sarewitz D (1996) Frontiers of illusion: science, technology and the politics of progress. Temple University Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sheetz T et al (2005) Nanotechnology: awareness and societal concerns. Technol Soc 27:329–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Song SY (2006) The rise and fall of embryonic stem cell research in Korea. Asian Biotechnol Dev Rev 9:65–73Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Swierstra T, Rip A (2007) Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. NanoEthics 1:3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Symonides J (ed) (1998) Human rights: new dimensions and challenges. Ashgate, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Tai TH, Chiou WT (2008) Equality and community in public deliberation: genetic democracy in Taiwan. In: Launis V, Räikkä J (eds) Genetic democracy: philosophical perspectives. Springer, Munich, pp 105–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
  62. 62.
    Taiwan Science, Technology & Society Association. See http://www.tw-sts.org/
  63. 63.
    Taiwan STS Network. See http://stsweb.ym.edu.tw/
  64. 64.
    Uldrich J, Newberry D (2003) The next big thing is really small: how nanotechnology will change the future of your business. Random House, NYGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Wang SH (2002, September) Special report: nanoscience is the engine for new industrial revolution. Commercial TimesGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Wilkinson C et al (2007) From uncertainty to risk: scientific and news media portrayals of nanoparticle safety. Health Risk Soc 9:145–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Williams R (2006) Compressed foresight and narrative bias: pitfalls in assessing high technology futures. Sci Cult 15:327–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Yen SY, Harmon S, Tang SM (2011) Genomics, biobanks and governance: challenges for Taiwan biobank—the case of indigenous peoples. Submitted to Issues & StudiesGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Zhou W (2003) Symposium review: ethics of nanobiotechnology at the frontline. Santa Clara Comput High Tech Law J 19:481–489Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shawn H. E. Harmon
    • 1
    • 2
  • Shang-Yung Yen
    • 3
  • Shu-Mei Tang
    • 4
  1. 1.Innogen, ESRC Centre for Social Economic Research on Innovation in GenomicsUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  2. 2.SCRIPT, School of Law, AHRC Centre for Research on Intellectual Property and Technology LawUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  3. 3.Graduate Institute of Management of TechnologyFeng Chia UniversityTaichungTaiwan
  4. 4.Department of Financial & Economic LawAsia UniversityTaichungTaiwan

Personalised recommendations